Issue 4 2014 Sword, Cross, and Plow vs. Pickaxe and Coin: A Comparison of the Medieval German Settlement of Prussia and Transylvania GEORGE R. STEVENS CLEMSON UNIVERSITY The German medieval settlement of Eastern Europe known as the Ostsiedlung was carried out by Germans and the Teutonic Order in both Hungary and Transylvania, but with vastly different results. Of the regions settled during the Ostsiedlung, Transylvania offered colonists some of the strongest incentives to settle there; in addition to an agreeable climate and fertile soil, those who settled in Transylvania also stood to enjoy generous expansions of legal and economic freedoms far beyond the rights they held in their homelands. Yet the Ostsiedlung in Transylvania was arguably a failure compared to the success of the movement in Prussia. Much of this contrast can be explained by comparing the settlement process in each region, conducted largely by peaceful means in Transylvania but by the sword and cross in Prussia. Conquest and conversion supported by secular and ecclesiastical authorities allowed Germans to dominate Prussia and cement the primacy of German language and culture there. By contrast, peaceful settlement left Transylvania’s large indigenous populations intact and independent. This cultural plurality, along with the long journey required to reach Transylvania and inconsistent support for settlement there, ensured German settlers in Transylvania never became more than a minority population. The medieval settlement of Prussia and Transylvania, from here on referred to by its German name, Ostsiedlung, was carried out by Germans and the Teutonic Order in both regions, but to vastly different ends. The German settlement of Transylvania was mostly peaceful, with the majority of settlers being miners, merchants, and peasants. The German settlement of Prussia, however, was done by the sword and the cross, with most of the population either killed or forcibly converted and assimilated. The extent and permanence of the Ostsiedlung in Prussia and Transylvania depended on geography, secular and ecclesiastical support for it, methods of conquest and settlement, degrees of cultural assimilation, and the number of settlers. This research paper begins in the mid-eleventh century in both locations, although some background information is provided. This starting point was chosen because it represents the beginning of the Northern Crusades in the Baltic with the Wendish Crusade in 1147 and King Géza II of Hungary’s invitation to Germans to settle Transylvania. The research concludes 34 Sword, Cross, and Plow vs. Pickaxe and Coin [ 35 at the dawn of the fourteenth century. By this time, the Prussian Crusade was over and the first ruling dynasty of Hungary, the Árpáds, had gone extinct. I. Geography The scope and duration of the Ostsiedlung in Prussia and Transylvania were predicated on simple geography – climate, soil fertility, population density, and more importantly, distance. Bishop Frederick of Hamburg’s 1106 charter to settlers attests to the poor state of the land in the Baltic region: “These men came to us and earnestly begged us to grant them certain lands in our bishopric, which are uncultivated, swampy, and useless to our people.”1 In contrast, the climate and quality of the land in Hungary and Transylvania was superb. The twelfth-century chronicler Otto of Freising wrote that Hungary was rich in both its natural beauty and the fertility of its soil.2 The land was much more fertile and the climate more agreeable in Hungary and Transylvania than in Prussia, but far fewer Germans settled there because of the long journey. The relative emptiness of Eastern Europe and what Western Europeans perceived as poor land management practices by Slavs, coupled with a population explosion in Western Europe, created a belief among Western Europeans that it was their God-given right to claim and tame lands in Eastern Europe. Of Hungary, Miklós Molnár writes, “There was no shortage of exploitable land in the time of the Angevins. On the contrary, with 3 million inhabitants distributed over a territory of around 300,000 square kilometers, population density was far lower than in Europe’s more developed countries.”3 Hungary also contained very few urban settlements, which accounted for only three percent of the 1 “Charter to German Settlers,” in The Crusades: A Reader, ed. S. J. Allen and Emilie Amt (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010), 265. 2 Otto traveled through Hungary during the Second Crusade with the army of King Conrad III of Germany. Otto is best known for his Gesta Friderici Imperatoris, a biography of Frederick Barbarossa. See Robert Bartlett, The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change, 950-1350 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993), 137. 3 Miklós Molnár, A Concise History of Hungary, trans. Anna Magyar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 47. 36 ] Stevens overall population.4 In the Baltic as well, Western Europeans commented on the lack of urban development.5 The low population density and low level of urban development contributed to Western European ideas that Eastern Europeans were backward and inferior. The emptiness of the Baltic, coupled with the perceived poor land management practices of the Slavs, created a mentality among Western Europeans similar to that of the nineteenth-century American concept of Manifest Destiny. These medieval settlers felt that they could put the land to better use than could their Slav counterparts. A late-fourteenth-century Cistercian poem about the earlier settlement of monks in Poland states: The monks were scarcely surviving and were very poor, For the country was wooded and without farmers, And Poland’s poor people were not industrious; They plowed the sandy soil with wooden plows, not iron, And with no more than two oxen at a time.6 The monks were critical of the Slavs’ agricultural practices, which they found primitive and inferior to the methods of Western Europeans, and believed that this inferiority justified German settlement of the region. Otto of Freising referred to Hungarians as “human monsters” due to their inability to properly work the land.7 Half a millennium later, British colonists and American frontiersmen used similar logic to justify their taking of Native American lands in North America. Jan M. Piskorski writes that the German colonists were “convinced of their superior civilization and had a sense of mission.”8 Because the Slavs did not understand appropriate methods of farming, the Germans argued, it was the Germans’ prerogative to settle and properly develop the lands of Eastern Europe. 4 Molnár, 48. 5 “Poem Describing Cistercian Settlement,” in The Crusades: A Reader, ed. S. J. Allen and Emilie Amt (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010), 267. 6 “Poem Describing Cistercian Settlement,” 267. 7 Bartlett, 137. 8 Jan M. Piskorski, “The Medieval Colonization of Central Europe as a Problem of World History and Historiography,” German History 22 (2004): 336-37. Sword, Cross, and Plow vs. Pickaxe and Coin [ 37 While climate, soil fertility, population density, agricultural practices, and a feeling of ethnocentrism were all certainly factors, distance had a larger impact on the lasting effects of the Ostsiedlung in Prussia and Transylvania. The logistics involved in medieval travel, along with the distance of traveling from German lands to Transylvania, made the journey significantly more difficult than traveling to Prussia. Consider the difference between travelling from Magdeburg, a major Saxon city in the Middle Ages, to Kronstadt (modern-day Brasov), the capital of medieval Burzenland in Transylvania, and traveling from Magdeburg to the Teutonic Knights’ headquarters at Marienburg Castle (modern-day Malbork, Poland). The distance from Magdeburg to Brasov is more than 1,500 kilometers. In the Middle Ages, a journey like this one would have taken more than a month and a half, assuming that the settlers were able to travel thirty kilometers per day.9 In contrast, the distance from Magdeburg to Malbork is closer to six hundred kilometers, and the trip between the two cities would have taken less than three weeks, again assuming thirty kilometers per day. Thus, secular German leaders encouraged settlement in Prussia and other Baltic lands because they had a stake in the process themselves due to these lands’ proximity to their own. German lay and ecclesiastical figures hoped to gain revenue by incorporating more land into their territories. Settlement in Transylvania, controlled by the Kingdom of Hungary, would not have been so eagerly encouraged by secular German leaders. II. Secular and Ecclesiastical Support in Prussia The papacy and German secular leaders both enthusiastically supported the efforts of the Ostsiedlung in Prussia, primarily through their support for the Northern Crusades and the Teutonic Order. The crusades in the Baltic region attracted German holy warriors, accompanied by merchants and farmers who settled in Prussia. One of the most obvious ways that the papacy supported the 9 Peter Spufford writes that medieval four-wheeled carts were able to travel thirty to forty kilometers per day between Salins and Paris, while two-wheeled carts covered less than thirty kilometers a day. See Peter Spufford, Power and Profit: The Merchant in Medieval Europe (London: Thames and Hudson, 2006), 200. 38 ] Stevens Ostsiedlung was through the multitude of crusades that it called against the Slavs of the Baltic region. The so-called Northern Crusades